confused by the process and documentation - won

[calavandriel]

Hi

I have got to the point in my case where I am going to court on 24th and have to have all docs in by monday but I am flummoxed by the need of a witness statement as I am the only person involved with this PCN as I have not named the driver.

Do I actually need to write a witness staement from myself or is my previously sent in defence sufficient.

I rang the court today and was told that the other party BWLegal for VCS have not paid the trial fee of £25 by the due date of March 27th but the court has yet to send a reminder letter giving BWLegal another 3 days to pay up. So when is a deadline a deadline in law?

PS the early iterations of my helplessness regarding this whole affair can be found here
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...t=calavandriel

Since that posting there has been one c/up after another from BWLegal, the court themselves and floundering layman me. Sadly its not always plain to some of us even when written in the simplest form of english

[ostell]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

The witness statement is your "story" about the events that led up to the court claim. Basically saying what you did and what you received and your response.

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

so its not about what happened on the day of the "offence"

[mystery1]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

Before, during and after. It should dovetail nicely with your defence and your skeleton/oral argument.

Do you want to send it to [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] so she can post it up and take a look ?

M!

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

ok will do. Just dont feel confident about how to write the argument. Is another person allowed to speak for me in court because my disability means I get a bit lost, or distracted during conversations. I use the wrong words and sound non sensical at times. its better if someone speaks for me but I dont know how I ask the court for that

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

ok so I emailed the court and hopefully they will allow me to take my son in law in an advocatory role. it is in the hands of the gods but at least thats one thing less to do.

[mystery1]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

Yes you can.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...9991225_en.pdf

And https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr.../pd_part27#3.1

Representation at a hearing
3.1 In this paragraph:
(1) a lawyer means a barrister, a solicitor or a legal executive employed by a solicitor, and
(2) a lay representative means any other person.

3.2
(1) A party may present his own case at a hearing or a lawyer or lay representative may present it for him.
(2) The Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 provides that a lay representative may not exercise any right of audience:–
(a) where his client does not attend the hearing;
(b) at any stage after judgment; or
(c) on any appeal brought against any decision made by the district judge in the proceedings.
(3) However the court, exercising its general discretion to hear anybody, may hear a lay representative even in circumstances excluded by the Order.
(4) Any of its officers or employees may represent a corporate party.


You should take copies with you in case you need to slap the judge round the chops with it.

M1

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

is that a good idea if I want a favorable outcome

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

Can some one look at this letter and explain how I argue the case they are relying on?

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

OK so why are they using PEvB when mine is about disability and grace period and signage?

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

So I was confused as to what a witness statement should actually contain so I wrote 2 of them.
here is my witness statement VERSION 1 comments please


1. The Defendant asserts that there was nothingmemorable in relation to the parking of the car in St Andrews Retail Park,Hessle Road, Hull on June 20^th 2014 or when subsequently leaving thesite later that day because there was no windscreen notification of any offenceoccurring during the time stated by the Claimant or the defendant would have hadevidence of said offence. The Defendantbelieves that the car would have been parked either in a disability bay or in anormal bay depending on availability because the site is a small heavily usedparking area for around 10 popular high street stores. The defendant knows thatthe car would have been displaying a valid blue badge as per the requirementsof the VCS parking notice as this was the normal routine for parking the caranywhere as a matter of routine. The defendant can also assert that it isgenerally difficult to leave the car park in a timely fashion most times due todifficulty entering the traffic on the main road. This road is always in heavyuse as it is a main access road to Hull City Centre. The defendant has notreceived any evidence that the car was parked for the extended period statedeven though that has been requested on of the claimant both in telephone conversationsand by letter. The defendant also believes that part of the time in questionwould have been allowed by the grace period as the driver would have been lookingfor viable a parking space, possibly waiting for another driver to leave a disabledspace so they could use it. They could also have been reviewing the signage,helping the defendant exit or enter the car or simply be trying to exit the carpark in a queue of cars onto the busy main road which was always an arduoustask. All these possibilities preclude the actual time the car can beconsidered as “parked”
2. Sometime afterthe 7^th of August 2014 theDefendant received a letterfrom VCS (Vehicle Control Services) requesting £100.00 for a Parking ChargeNotice stating that the Defendant –
A) Was the registered keeperof the vehicle .
B) Had parked longer thanthe maximum period permitted at the St Andrews Retail Park Car Park on June 20^th2014.
C) The over stay was allegedto be 20 minutes beyond the maximum 2 hours allowed.
As this was thefirst time this incident had been brought to the Defendants notice the Defendantrang to query its validity. The Defendant was informed this was the secondletter sent out by VCS. However the first letter had not been received by theDefendant and VCS had no tracking information available to prove the letter hadarrived at the correct destination. Infact the Defendant would argue that the letter had not been sent and as such the Claimant had already contravened the POFA Schedule 4asnd the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant recalls challenging the VCSoperator with the information that as a Disabled Blue Badge Scheme user theywere was allowed a maximum of 3 hours anywhere including double yellow linesand as such this invalidated the PCN. The Defendant assured the operator thatthe PCN would not be paid nor would any amount they tried to charge as the sitein question was a free car park. The Defendant refuted the claim to the parking charge notice as the Defendant –
A) Held a valid disabilityparking blue badge, which gives disabled drivers a full three hours parkingtime.
B) Noted that no specificinstructions were displayed stating that the use of a Blue Badge was limited oraffected by any further restrictions or rules. In fact the signage demandedthat a valid Blue Badge should be displayed by anyone using the disabledparking bays
C) The car park in questionis a free car park and therefore negates the claim of any loss of revenue if anover stay occurred
Based upon this theDefendant believed that no parking regulations had been breached. TheDefendant also noted that this particular letter dated 7/8/2014 had informationon the reverse regarding appeals but given that the letter arrived on or around10^th August 2014 it clearly showed that the Defendant was outside of the datefor the appeals process to POPLA, which according to the information on theback of the letter had been for 28 days from the date of issue of the first PCNwhich the Claimant asserted was on or around 20^th June 2014. TheOperator agreed that the Defendant was outside of any appeal time and wasliable for the charge as no appeal would now be considered.
3. The St Andrews RetailPark Car Park is actually a Threadneedle SelectTrust property managed by Savill-Pheonix Beard Property Management. They leasethis land to VCS who use it as a private car park, As such there is no contractinferred or otherwise between the Landholder and the driver or Keeper of thevehicle. The Defendant hoping to have access to the landowner sent an email tothe Managing Agent at Savill-Pheonix Beard, one Mr Phil O’Gorman who chose notto reply.
4. On the 6^thof October 2014, The Defendant was contacted byRossendales Collect for £130.00, as they had added a £30.00 administration feeonto the former PCN charge. TheDefendant rang and gave themthe same information as provided to VCS on when the first letter to theDefendant had been challenged. Again the operator stated the Defendant was outof time for an appeal to take place and was liable for said charge.
5. A letter dated14^th of October 2014 was received by the Defendant stating that theaccount was “on Hold” pending a reply from VCS regarding the informationrelated to them on the earlier telephone conversation.
6. Letters dated 13^thof November 2014 and the 27^th of November 2014 were sent to the Defendant with demands for £130. These were subsequentlyignored. The letter dated 13^th Nov stated that their client ExcelParking confirmed that the appeal timehad already expired , that parking time allowed was 2 hours and that theDefendant had parked between 13:48pm and 16:08 pm on the date in question. Nophotographic evidence was offered and the Defendant would question the validityof the information considering the incident did not involve Excel Parking butthe query was never put to VCS at all.
7. On the 4^thof December 2014, The Defendants daughter wrote toRossendales on the Defendants behalf because the Defendant was at a point where she was too distressed by the constant harassment to deal with the situation.The Defendants daughter made them aware of the various POFA and BPA violationsthat their clients had made. She noted that as no grace period was stipulatedon the signage, and as such, the time taken should have be deemed acceptable,given that the Defendant needed a reasonableadjustment for her mobility which affects her ability to enter and exit avehicle, and the fact that the actions they were taking were against avulnerable disabled person who was in a fragile state.
8. By letter datedthe 18^th of December 2014 the Defendant was informed that the account had been put on hold again while Rossendalescontacted VCS with this information.
9. A letter dated20^th of January 2015 was received by the Defendant which threatened to send a "doorstepcollector" to her home. As the Defendant is often alone in the house the Defendant found this prospect terrifying. This one letteralone caused great emotional distress.
10. On the 30^thof January 2015 the Defendant received a letter fromRossendales that stated “We have liaised with our client blue badges do notcover private property which is clear on our signs” (ref photo of sign). Thisis not stated on the sign which simply says “A valid disabled badge MUST bedisplayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle with the details clearlyvisible at all times”. The Defendant s Blue Badge is displayedcorrectly when in use and this is not in dispute in this claim. Their signstates Blue Badges must be used in a specific manner but they then contradictedthemselves by stating that Blue Badges are not accepted on this same Car Park.
11. The daughter’sletter was disregarded as evidenced when a letter then arrived dated 13^thof February 2015 demanding payment and once again threatening a “field visit”from a debt collector, the Defendanttelephoned them to refutethis again. They did not listen to the offered arguments. This was the last timeRossendales contacted the defendant.
12. A letter dated 2^ndof June 2015 arrived from DRP (Debt RecoveryPlus Ltd) with a demand for a payment of an unpaid parking chargefor £160. The Defendant was unable to respond tothis in a timely fashion due to –
A) Ongoing health issues.
B) Having had nonotification from Rossendales that the PCN had been transferred to another debtrecovery company.
13. The Defendant received further letters on the 17^th of June 2015and the 3^rd of July 2015 at which point her daughter contacted DRPproviding the same information as previously supplied to VCS and Rossendales.The letter of 17^th June refers to a letter that was never receivedby the Defendant dated 20^th May 2015, however the previous letterdated 2^nd June was their introductory letter therefore why would aletter have been sent on May 20^th? The Defendant would respectfullyask the court to consider the numerous inaccuracies made by all the DebtCollection Agencies and ask that the court considers that any of the Claimantsinformation may be considered unreliable. The letter of 3^rd of Julyincluded an offer of reduced charges of £128.00 to avoid court proceedings. The Defendant believes she rang to refute this; however the Defendantcannot be sure of that fact given worsening health conditions and the stresscaused by the multiple demands previously received.
14. In lettersdated 31^st of July 2015 and the 17^th of August 2015 the Defendant was introduced to yet another debt recovery agency,namely Zenith (a trading arm of Debt Recovery Plus Ltd), offering areduced payment of £79.99 for the PCN. Both letters where refuted asbefore.
15. Nearly a yearpassed then the Defendant received 2 letters datedthe 2^nd of June 2016 from both VCS, stating that they had passed thedebt over to their approved legal service provider BWLegal and a letter fromBWLegal directly, asking for another inflated payment of £154.00. This includedtheir client’s initial legal costs and the original PCN. This letter was notresponded to.
16. The Defendant received a Final Notice letter from BWLegal dated 5^thof July 2016 stating that because the balance was still outstanding, they werenow proceeding to apply to the county court, even though, as previously stated,the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and as such haveno responsibility for this supposed offence.
17. A letter ofclaim was sent dated the 2^nd of August 2016, which added court andsolicitor's fees to the charge, making a new total payable to £245.96. The Defendant was still ill during this time and was unable to respondto them, and the defendant’s daughter now worked shifts, and could no longerpromptly intervene with the BWLegal.
18. On 22^ndof September 2016, The Defendantwas issued with a Noticeof Claim which The Defendant replied to the courtindicating a decision to defend the claim.
19. The Defendant has recently surrendered her Motobility Car as she nolonger feel able to carry on maintaining the vehicle following the threats anddemands put upon her by VCS and their multiple debt recovery agents. Thisprocess has directly affected her health and has left her not wanting to own avehicle any longer. This now leaves her very disadvantaged given her increasingmobility issues. However, the distress and psychological impact this has had onher leaves the Defendant with no other option butto give up her current mode of transport. This has deeply hurt the Defendants sense of independence.

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

then I wrote this one. thoughts please?

__________________________________________________ _______________
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________________________________ _______________



I, xxxxxxxxx ofxxxxxxxxxxxxx beingthe Defendant in this case will state as follows

1. I make this Witness Statementin support of my defense in this claim which is due to be heard on xx^hApril 2017 a txxxxxCounty Court. The matters set out below are within my ownknowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary.

2. On or about August 10^th 2014 theDefendant received a Liability Notice [ExhibitA liability letter] from Vehicle Control Services (VCS) dated 7^thAugust 2014. It notified the defendant ofan alleged violation of their regulations at the St Andrews Retail Park, on 20^th of June2014 at 16: 08. In order to comply withSch. 4 Para 9(4) (b) [ Exhibit B Schedule4 POFA]the Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days beginning withthe day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, in this caseby 4^th June 2014. This notificationletter received by the Defendant was 34 days later that was required to complywith the POFA. The letter dated 7^th August [Exhibit A liability letter] requested an escalated sum of £100because the Claimant asserted that a PCN had either been affixed to the car orsent through the post and ignored by the Defendant. As this was not the case the defendantsubsequently contacted VCS immediately to discuss the situation. They informedher that she was outside of the appeal time for themselves and POPLA sotherefore the charge stood. There was no PCN affixed to the car at the time ofthe alleged offence nor was a letter delivered within the 15 days after theevent and the defendant asks that VCS prove delivery of this first NTK theyinsist was sent to her but have yet to prove that. She asked many times thatVCS send her a copy of the first letter in question which to this day despiteafter many such requests, VCS have failed to produce it. This is a documentthat was never received and it is disputed that it was ever produced or sentwhich is why VCS have been unable to furnish the defendant with a copy of it.The defendant requires evidence that the original notice was correctlyaddressed, put in an envelope, pre-paid, and POSTED out the correct timescale.(Interpretation Act 1978).
Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 FridayJune 20^th June is Day 0
Saturday 21^st June is Day 1
Sunday 22^nd June is Day 2
Monday 23^rd June is Day 3
:
:
Friday 4th July is Day 14
Notice must be given within 14 day period at the maximum = Friday July 4^th[ExhibitB Schedule 4 POFA Para 9 (5)]
The first Notice to Keeper to arrive is dated Thursday 7^th August2014. In order for VCS to be compliant with POFA, the PCN had to have beenactually POSTED by Wednesday 2nd July at the latest. The NTK was deliveredoutside the 14 day maximum period allowed. As such, Keeper liability cannotapply. Consequently, VCS has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFAto claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper.


3. The address used on much of the correspondencesent to the Defendant had an added line reading C/O Motability Finance Ltd. TheDefendants address is not found anywhere with that listing except +56987possiblyon the DVLA database and it is obviously listed in such a way that it shows theDefendant as the keeper of a disabled persons Motability car [Exhibit C Motability agreement]. TheDefendant has been registered as disabled with the Hull Council Social Servicesfor many years, [Exhibit D disabilitycard]. The VCS obviously could see this but disregarded that fact and continuedto aggressively pursue the Defendant for nearly 3 years ending with this CountyCourt Summons. They have blatantly contravened TheBPA Code of Practice section 16:5. “Ifyour landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people ,if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parkingcharge notices” [Exhibit E BPA CoPFeb to Oct]


4. The alleged contravention was recorded at16: 08 when the mobility vehicle, registration YY11TXS was captured by APRNcamera both entering and leaving the car park. The defendant has not seen any evidence ofthis recorded 20 minute parked overstay but believes it could have been negatedhad VCS applied any of the regulations they are supposed to apply when dealingwith disabled people with mobility issues. The BPA CoP states 13.2 and 13.4that a “Grace Period “should be applied before the start of the stay to allowthe decision to stay to be made and at the end so the driver can leave withouthindrance. [Exhibit E BPA CoP Feb to Oct]’ an extension to that time could havesubsequently been seen as a reasonable adjustment as advised at 16.1 in the BPAhandbook. [Exhibit E BPA CoP Feb to Oct].

5. An APRN camera cannot tell if the carpark user is a blue badge holder or not and records every car indiscriminately butthe defendant had a valid blue badge [ExhibitF Blue Badge] which was displayed as a matter of routine whenever the car wasparked and regardless of the type of bay used.


6. The defendant explained to VCS that asshe did not receive notification until some 48 days after the event; was notthe driver and does not hold a valid UK license as she cannot drive [Exhibit G paper and plastic driving license]therefore could not have committed this alleged contravention and would not willingpay the expanded charge. Based upon this fact the defendant does not believeshe failed to settle an outstanding liability. The defendant believes that VCS failed to comply with POFA 2012 to hold the keeperliable; as such the Keeper defendant has no liability in this matter. Thedefendant also believes that theyhad deliberately taken away the defendants right to appealthrough POPLA.

7. The defendant does not contest the timeof entry or departure but does contest that there was any overstay as shedisplayed a valid Blue Badge which allows for 3 hours of parking time and thatany inferred overstay was covered by the grace period as outlined in the BPA CoP, section 13.2 and 13.4[Exhibit E BPA CoP] and asserts thatdue to her mobility and disability issues the 20 minute infraction that VCS areclaiming was actually within accepted grace period limitations. This is also an infringement of the EqualityAct 2010, as stated in the BPA CoPsection 16.1 and 16.2 ~ “providersof services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barrierswhich may discriminate against disabled people… You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people maytake a long time... You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leavethe private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you takeenforcement action.”[Exhibit E BPA CoP] which indicates theirlack of reasonable adjustment of their terms and conditions, for any disabledusers of the car park

8. VCS has no standing or authority to pursue chargesor to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park the Defendant does not believe that VCS has any proprietary interest in theland such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its ownright, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of suchtitle, VCS must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue chargesfor breach in their own right, including at Court level. I would contend that VCS simply holds a basiclicense to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets'as a deterrent to car park users. The Defendant therefore requires VCS toprovide the Court and I with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of thecontract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may besatisfied that this contract permits VCS to make contracts with drivers in itsown right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including aright to pursue them in Court in its own name. For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that acontract is or was in place at the time of the alleged infraction will not besufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such asrevenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, setamounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statementwould not comply with section 7 of the BPA CoP as the definition of theservices provided would not be stated in such a vague template document. [Exhibit E BPA CoP]

9. The Signage [Exhibit AA] at the site is written in an ambiguous way when itmentions Blue Badge Holders. It does not make it clear how long Blue Badge Holderscan park for. The Consumer Rights Act2015 states that in circumstances where the terms of a notice are notnegotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is anyambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writingthose terms, including
Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumercontract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent forthe purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligiblelanguage and it is legible.
Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could havedifferent meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
In this case the VCS car park signage failed to notifythe driver that a Blue Badge Holder would not be allowed the 3 hours that theBlue Badge Scheme allows and was ambiguous because it actively states that adisabled driver MUST display a valid Blue Badge as a condition to using thedisabled bays provided thus actively acknowledging the Blue Badge provisions. In fact in their letter to the defendant,dated 20^th Jan 2014, [ExhibitO ] Rossendales claim that Blue Badge provisions were not supported onprivate property and that the signs on the site clearly state that. Howeverthat is not the case, the only reference to the Blue Badge as displayed on thesigns insists that a blue badge is prominently displayed to allow parking in adisability bay, implying that the blue badge can be used as per the schemesregulations
10. Theescalating aggressive nature of VCS can be seen from the multiple letters sentto the Defendant from various different Debt Collection Agencies, [Exhibits H to K, M to X ] employed byVCS. In each letter VCS ignored the facts, refused to cancel the charge oraccept that an infringement may not have occurred. Each VCS appointed debt collection agency orlegal representatives were contacted at least once by the Defendant and herdaughter, (who advocates when the Defendant is too ill) to explain thecircumstances surrounding the PCN by letter, though mainly by telephone. Each time the original NTK was requested, refusalto pay the PNC was reiterated, as was a request to cancel the PCN and on someoccasions for my daughter to explain to them the stress and worry theiraggressive bullying letters was causing me [ExhibitL Daughters letter to Rossendales Collect]. This always resulted in their insistence that they were well withintheir rights targeting and harassing a disabled keeper

11. The originally alleged infringement documentedan overstay ion the car park by 20 minutes ending at 16: 08pm. There has been norecord shown of when the defendant entered the car park. This was at a timewhen Hessle Road bus lanes are in force and can get very busy making leavingthe car park an arduous task as the queue to enter the mainstream traffic canbe 5 or 6 cars long. That can easily add time to the APRN image capture so the timestamp does not accurately reflect the time the car was actually parked as thecameras are situated at the entrance of the car park. [Exhibits BB/CC/DD ] The entrance is also the car park exit and assuch can add more “fake” parked time to the whole process. The Defendant would put VCS to strict proof ofthe true length of time that the car in question was parked and stationary asdefined by the DVLA, and not engaged in finding a suitable bay or sitting inthe exit queue trying to leave the car park and enter the traffic on a main arterial road.






__________________________

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
__________________________

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

are they both really bad?

[calavandriel]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

Ok so no members had an opinion or advise, disappointing but ..... it all seems to have been for naught as BWLegal, after dragging my poor stressed self through turmoil, after being given extra time to get thier act in order by 13th April HAVE NOT PAID THE TRIAL FEE.

So guys what happens now?

[mystery1]

Re: confused by the process and documentation

They will get a 2nd chance to pay the trial fee.

PE v B will always make an appearance in a parking case. It's up to us to say why it doesn't apply. It doesn't always.


The defendant doesn't drive ? but i see no witness evidence on this point which would drive the matter firmly in to the PoFA point which they probably fail quite badly on.

M1